April 22, 2010

An episode of “South Park” that continued a story line involving the Prophet Muhammad was shown Wednesday night on Comedy Central with audio bleeps and image blocks reading “CENSORED” after a Muslim group warned the show’s creators they could face violence for depicting that holy Islamic prophet. Revolution Muslim, a group based in New York, wrote on its Web site that the “South Park” creators Matt Stone and Trey Parker “will probably wind up like Theo Van Gogh” for an episode shown last week in which a character said to be the Prophet Muhammad was seen wearing a bear costume. Mr. Van Gogh was slain in Amsterdam in 2004 after making a film that discussed the abuse of Muslim women in some Islamic societies.

A new episode of “South Park” on Wednesday night attempted to revisit this character, but with the name and depiction of the character blocked out. It was unclear how much of the bleeping was Mr. Stone and Mr. Parker’s decision. In a message posted on their Web site, SouthParkStudios.com, they wrote that they could not immediately stream the new episode on the site because:

After we delivered the show, and prior to broadcast, Comedy Central placed numerous additional audio bleeps throughout the episode. We do not have network approval to stream our original version of the show.

On Thursday morning, a spokesman for Comedy Central confirmed that the network had added more bleeps to the episode than were in the cut delivered by South Park Studios, and that it was not giving permission for the episode to run on the studio’s Web site.

Did Revolution Muslim truly threaten Stone and Parker or was it merely warning them? That is, were they indicating that they would commit and act of violence or were they only opining based on their prediction of what others, more extreme than they, would do? Revolution Muslim says it's just a warning:

In a telephone interview on Wednesday, Younus Abdullah Muhammad, a member of Revolution Muslim, repeated the group’s assertion that the post was a prediction rather than a threat. He said that the post on the group’s blog “was intended in a principle that’s deeply rooted in the Islamic religion, which is called commanding the good and forbidding the evil,” tying the group’s complaints about “South Park” to larger frustrations about U.S. support for Israel and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

They have freedom of speech too, so the question is whether it's a true threat.

ADDED: I have no end of respect for Stone and Parker. What brilliant artists! What political heroes!

Muhammad, a member of Revolution Muslim, repeated the group’s assertion that the post was a prediction rather than a threat. He said that the post on the group’s blog “was intended in a principle that’s deeply rooted in the Islamic religion, which is called commanding the good and forbidding the evil,”

Err, so to support his assertion that the speech was not a threat, he described it as tied to an imperative - "commanding" or "forbidding" an action. Mmmkay.

"They have freedom of speech too, so the question is whether it's a true threat."

If that's the question, it can only be answered by an investigation empowered to get at the facts bearing on intent. I'd be surprised if the Obama DOJ takes it on, though.

Note that the Gov't hasn't done well with prosecutions based on web-based statements that could amount to threats. The recent federal prosecution in NY, at which Judges Posner and Easterbrook testified about such threats (I think they were the ones) didn't turn out so well for the prosecution.

Bit-by-bit, here, there, and everywhere--in schools, government, the armed services--you name it, we are submitting to the "will of Allah." True dhimmitude status as second-class citizens in our own country, bending to the will of Muslims. I hope everyone likes getting used to our new overlords..

Did Revolution Muslim truly threaten Stone and Parker or was it merely warning them? That is, were they indicated they would commit and act of violence or were they only opining based on their prediction of what others, more extreme than they, would do?

Part of me is somewhat inclined to sympathize with Comedy Central here. I mean, they're just a stupid comedy network, which mainly shows R-rated cartoons and low budget movies. Why should they have to deal with potentially credible (based on past performance) death threats to their employees over a silly cartoon? Better to just pull it and avoid the whole issue.

But, on the other hand, every time anyone capitulates to these monsters, they give them more power. It's not fair that something as frivolous as Comedy Central should be brought into it, but they have been, and, if they don't stand up, we all suffer. There can't be an in-between; it's sort of a new version of "If you're not with us, you're against us." - Lyssa

In Islam, Jesus is considered a Messenger of God who had been sent to guide the People of Israel with a new scripture, the Injīl (gospel). The Qur'an, believed by Muslims to be God's final revelation, mentions Jesus 25 times. How funny would it be if the Revolution Muslim went after people who ridicule Jesus?

ADDED: I have no end of respect for Stone and Parker. What brilliant artists! What political heroes!

In the end, they were just as scared and terrified as one could imagine. Why are they scared? Because they know more people like Alpha Liberal and garage mahal, then they know of people like myself.

The episode last night was truly brilliant. The mockery was not of Islam, but of Islam's sacrosanct place in the culture. As such, the parts that were censored only reinforced the thrust of the show's argument. Also any Muslim who finds this non-depiction of Mohammed offensive makes himself not righteous but ridiculous. To make death threats about your group's propensity to make death threats just furthers the joke. Revolution Muslim may wish to be fearsome, but they are fearsome in a foolish way. Their big, red rubber nose is more obvious than their scimitar.

But, on the other hand, every time anyone capitulates to these monsters, they give them more power. It's not fair that something as frivolous as Comedy Central should be brought into it, but they have been, and, if they don't stand up, we all suffer.

It’s not fair that anyone is brought into it. It’s ridiculous. But the fact that comedy central even aired the thing in the first place is more than we get from most news organizations and other places that should really be pushing back on it.

Stone and Parker need to fight back directly by satirizing this threat and those making it. I would hate to have those two guys on my case. They have the power hand. One crazy guy did Van Gogh. These thugs have little power to make that happen, but Comedy Central can make these guys look like the terrorist fools they are immediately and world-wide overnight.

garage - you know that Islamonazis draw sustenance from liberals like you. You defend them. You justify their atrocities. You give them cover for their anti-Israel hate. "Well we aren't hateful, garage mahal thinks the exact same things!"

William is on tgt here. Humor, as political cartoonists (and, obviously, Muslims) know, can be fatal. John Stewart and Colbert almost alone did more political damage to the right and the Bush Administration than democratic politicians ever did..

William is on tgt here. Humor, as political cartoonists (and, obviously, Muslims) know, can be fatal. John Stewart and Colbert almost alone did more political damage to the right and the Bush Administration than democratic politicians ever did..

We own a lot of guns in this country and I would really hate for anyone at the office of Revolution Muslim to get shot in the face going to work or to have their houses set on fire as they sleep. I mean,I could understand why someone would do this, but it would just be terrible.

You know I don't agree with garage on...well probably anything other than the color of the sky (and I reserve the right to get a second opinion) but you really need to just STFU. I mean you have quite kicked the moby thing to death around here.

Grayson Perry, the cross-dressing potter, Turner Prize winner and former Times columnist, said that he had consciously avoided commenting on radical Islam in his otherwise highly provocative body of work because of the threat of reprisals.

Didn't this happen once before? I seem to remember an earlier situation in which Comedy Central bleeped out a whole scene in "South Park" because it might have been offensive to Muslims. It might have had something to do with the Danish cartoons, but it was several years ago and I can't remember the details -- does anybody else?

Its sad that one of the few people actually defending the Constitution are two creators of a genius cartoon that is viewed as being crass and juvenile.

Its even funnier when you realize that the powers-that-be really don't get jokes that are rather obvious. Muslim groups threatening violence in reaction to a cartoon where they say they can't show because his adherents will kill people.

...up there with them mocking their networks refusal to air an image of Mohammad out of a desire to "not offend" people by ending that episode with Jesus shitting on the American flag,

Anyone with even an ounce of reality based thinking would see the absolute irony in bring to trial a person for 'inciting hatred' of a specific group of people at the same time having to provide 24/7 police protection from the very same people committed to murdering him.

I think you really have to consider your society a lost cause at that point.

Comments on older posts will go up after they are approved (because of a problem with spam). Comments on new posts may be read by me and, although I sometimes delete posts for offending some rule or another, my failure to delete means nothing, and I generally encourage free speech (as well as funny and concise digressions). Other than that, don't use the "n-word" and don't attack non-famous individuals who aren't here participating in the dialogue. And please don't ridicule Muhammad because I don't want my fuckin head cut off.

Since death threats seem to work, why shouldn't Stone and Parker issue a death threat (backed by money) against the group that threatened them? Why should Islamist radicals be the only ones that get to issue death threats?

"Hi, I'm Matt Stone. And I'm Trey Parker. We're really pissed about these death threats against us, so we're offering $500,000 to whomever kills the leadership of Revolution Muslim. If you don't like it, eat me."

It did, right around the time of Danish cartoon controversy, they did an episode where they wanted to show a perfectly neutral Muhammad. Comedy Central balked (I think they said that they didn't want to risk anyone getting hurt, which I understand- see my comment above), so they did an entire episode around people fighting about the depiction, which they ended by showing Jesus and (then) Pres. Bush throwing feces at each other.

Which got some complaints from people who didn't get the joke (look what we can do to the American president and country's most sacred religious figure without fear of retribution), but no one threatened to kill anyone over it. I thought that it was really quite brilliant.

I suppose that is one way to look at it although I suspect it wasn't a joke but rather the typical tuck tail and dont' offend the Muslims or someone might get hurt.

Hey, I don't mind it one bit that folks don't want to risk getting beheaded or stabbed to death in broad daylight by some offended follower of Islam. I myself don't go around stirring a nest of hornets but I also don't give hornets the same consideration I do butterflies either.

I have never liked that part of Islam that turns submission to God's absolute authority into submit to our way or else, especially when it ignores the West's free press tradition. But perhaps if they had said lock and load and compared the South Park creators to Hitler that would have been just part of the political dialog and more acceptable?

I remember when the Da Vinci Code hit the theaters and really got a kick out of the idea that the Son of God shacked up with Mary Magdelene and that the Catholic Church would keep this horrible secret by brutally murdering anyone who stumbled across it.

The real hilarity ensued when the group most offended by this movie were albinos upset that the psycho priest who was out whacking people in the movie was portrayed as an albino.

Since death threats seem to work, why shouldn't Stone and Parker issue a death threat…

“Hi, I'm Matt Stone. And I'm Trey Parker. We're really pissed about these death threats against us, so we're offering $500,000 to whomever kills the leadership of Revolution Muslim. If you don't like it, eat me.”

Uh because that would be solicitation of murder for hire? A Capital Offense in many jurisdictions.

Revolution Muslim issued a “warning” stating that bad things could happen, IF certain things were portrayed on “South Park.” They didn’t say, THEY were going to do ANYTHING if South Park did or did not act in a certain way. Your suggestion makes a specific request for a specific action, and provides for a reward if the specific action occurs. And that makes all the difference.

Had you or I issued the warning it needn’t have been worded any differently, “Dear Messr. Parker and Stone. If you publicize Mohamed, in violation of the Q’uran violence may ensue. Please note what happened to Theo Van Gogh.” Now have you or I threatened or warned Parker and Stone? Why should the name “Revolution Muslim” change that in any way? It can be argued that, indeed, that Revolution Muslim was merely trying to warn Parker and Stone, if you defame the Prophet Muslims may kill you. It’s true, and it needn’t be taken as a threat. That’s why it’s protected speech….you can’t make the case that Revolution Muslim is making anything like a threat, they don’t call for violence, they warn of it. They do not call on anyone to do anything at any particular time.

And BTW, anyone who puts Mayo on Pastrami and eats it on white bread, may suffer indignities galore…I’m just say’n.

I think it's a Wisconisn (sic) Thing. I hear that Meade always buys out all the Miracle Whip at Whole Foods. Kinky.

Respectfully, you've got it wrong.

Miracle Whip was a device invented and marketed by Ron Popiel in the early 1980's. It was purchased primarily by new Yorkers, at least in certain boroughs of NYC and parts of the Hamptons.

Miracle Whip became obsolete when Al Goldstein introduced the faster and more effective ReddiWhip, which itself was outdated by the higher-tech DreamWhip, a personal favorite of DreamWhip paid spokesperson Bobby Flay.

But perhaps if they had said lock and load and compared the South Park creators to Hitler that would have been just part of the political dialog and more acceptable?

Or perhaps learn to take a joke and ignore it? I mean that's what grownups tend to do.

It takes a real special kind of liberal to attempt to draw a death threat issued by Islamic radicals over a cartoon series with protestsupset over runaway government spending. Or maybe that's Danish logic at work.

Aside from writing headlines that would NOT make the Shipping News, I'm not sure if "cowers" is apprpriate - prudent is more like it.

Further, where is the Islamic group from? From here? Over there? Cyber?

I'm glad you (Ann) is all for free speech. I am too. We all are. Overt or implied threats are, I guess, a form of free speech but I'm a bit confused at the distinction between "I am going to kill you" and "Can you imagine being killed by me". A distinction without a difference perhaps?

"Revolution Muslim issued a “warning” stating that bad things could happen, IF certain things were portrayed on “South Park.” They didn’t say, THEY were going to do ANYTHING if South Park did or did not act in a certain way. Your suggestion makes a specific request for a specific action, and provides for a reward if the specific action occurs. And that makes all the difference."

This kind of idiot is why killers speak like Bill Clinton (kinda a killer himself).

Let's not fuck around: those terrorist assholes threatened to kill South Park's creators over a stupid cartoon, and it's not the first time they've done that or even killed someone. The idea that they didn't 'fully' make their threat 'bad' is incorrect... and it's evil.

I love SP for a number of reasons. First, they have managed to poke fun at innumerable public icons, etc. through the years. Remember Tom Cruise in the closet? They do an amazingly good job at it.

So much of the current humor, running from Jon Stewart through Family Guy, is hard left. Bernie GGoldberg last night was arguing that it was because the entertainment community was such (or was that O'Reilly's point?) South Park is much more equal opportunity.

The other thing that I love are all the allusions they make to that part of Colorado. Growing up, my grandparents sometimes put their horses in SP for the winter, have been through there probably better than a hundred times, and recognize pretty much all of the Colorado references. And, I even have a picture I took maybe 5 years ago of the closest thing there is to SP elementary.

BTW, if anyone doubts that the SP they supposedly live in, isn't the one SW of Denver on US 285, keep in mind all the references to Kenosha pass, which is the pass on 285 through the front range into SP.

No. Unlike the Christian God, Allah has no interaction with humans and no human characteristics. There are no conversations with Allah. Allah demands submission. Period. Think of muslims as the children of a distant and purely willful father who is utterly indifferent to their prayers, demands unquestioning obedience and murders any who are less than totally obedient. Then think of what such children become as they grow. Grow, not mature, because autonomous maturity is forbidden them. They become nothing but walking rage. Directed at YOU!

"Can you imagine being killed by me". A distinction without a difference perhaps?

But that’s not what they said, was it? They said that Parker and Stone could be murdered if they defamed the Prophet. Now, I can see where a bunch of Muslims saying this could be taken as a threat, but take the same words and have them uttered by an executive at Comedy Central and suddenly it’s NOT threatening? There IS a big difference between saying “I will kill you if you defame the Prophet” and saying, “If you defame the Prophet, Muslims may try to kill you.” And simply because a Muslim, as opposed to a secular Exec, makes the statement doesn’t turn it into a “threat.” At least not legally…..though I ain’t no stink’n lawyer!

I don't think atheists threaten to kill anyone over atheism, though the worst killers in the history of the world were atheists and very religiously oppressive. It's really a bit too unorganized a viewpoint for me to logically blame an athiest for Mao.

Though a lot of the athiests I know blame tea partiers for random loners or even fabricated outrages. It's illogical so I won't do it too.

On the other hand, any person who doesn't note that Catholics and Protestants and Jews today are superior to Muslims are not credible. Islam is inferior. That's the truth.

Yes La ilaha illa allalh is the first principle on which Islam is based, but I object to when that personal acceptance gets twisted by fundamentalist into threats to submit to their beliefs-- I thought that was clear. And Joe, in Denmark, and in Madison, folks wonder just why some threats,which hint at violence, are considered part of the current political landscape of free expression and others are not.

For the most part, people threaten when they are unable or unwilling to act. These Islamists already have plenty of "justification" in their mind to murder if they were actually prepared to, so insulting them more is free at this point. I say: have at it.

Let's not f*ck around: those terrorist assholes threatened to kill South Park's creators over a stupid cartoon, and it's not the first time they've done that or even killed someone. The idea that they didn't 'fully' make their threat 'bad' is incorrect... and it's evil.

Uh NO THEY DID NOT…they posited that IF the Prophet was profaned, THEN someone, might try to kill them….They didn’t say THEY’D kill them, neither did they say, “IF Parker and Stone profane the Prophet we call upon Muslims to kill Parker and Stone.” They didn’t say, “IF Parker and Stone profane the Prophet we call upon Muslims to kill Parker and Stone within twelve hours of the airing of the program.” Or, “IF Parker and Stone profane the Prophet we call upon Muslims to kill Parker and Stone within twelve hours of the airing of the program and if done within that time frame we will pay that persons family $250,000.”

Also they said, “Nice life you got there, be a shame if some Muslim terminated over a profanation of the Prophet.” Well, dude it’s true isn’t it? It’s a statement, not a threat.

Man I hate to sound like the ACLU on a thread like this….

But I freely admit that though I am a “l”ibertarian on the issue of Speech, I have NEVER put pastrami on white bread, nor have I ever profaned it with mayo, or Miracle Whip….

And Joe, in Denmark, and in Madison, folks wonder just why some threats,which hint at violence, are considered part of the current political landscape of free expression and others are not.

Well if you can point out where some group said, “Mr. President is you do this, THEN we may have to kill you.” I’ll try to understand…..I have read some Presidential Candidates urging supporters to get in peoples faces and to punch back twice as hard…but I never really complained about it.

Warning of violence vs threat of violence should not be an issue. In the free country there should be neither. However, the fact that we even discuss the issue shows a confusion brought in by the media impotence against brainwashing attack by the Muslim organisations that use, successfully, liberal moral relativism, to undermine western values, especially freedom of speech.

And Joe, in Denmark, and in Madison, folks wonder just why some threats,which hint at violence, are considered part of the current political landscape of free expression and others are not.

Perhaps because some groups of people - say, Muslims - have a history of following through on their rhetoric.

Whereas other groups of people - say, tea partiers - do not.

This is really pretty obvious because the whole joke-on-the-muslims thing scares Comedy Cebtral execs out of their wits, but they're perfectly comfortable with Stewart and Colbert making fun of tea party protestors.

I learned something today: Stone and Parker are neither "brilliant artists" or "political heroes", and when they try to be ("200" and "201"), they end up not being what they usually are: funny! ("Medicinal Fried Chicken").

Stone and Parker do make some valid points though: Most people are dumb, most people get it wrong, and most people misinterpret everything. And reading Althouse consistently proves that Stone and Parker are right.

Hoosier said: "I suppose that is one way to look at it although I suspect it wasn't a joke but rather the typical tuck tail and dont' offend the Muslims or someone might get hurt."

You're mixing up the actors. Stone and Parker wanted to show Muhammad; Comedy Central said no. So S & P responded with Jesus and Bush to show the differences in our reactions towards Muslims and Christians. It was as much making fun of CC's reaction as it was of Islam's threats.

Warning of violence vs threat of violence should not be an issue. In the free country there should be neither. That’s not true….certainly we should be able to warn of violence. How about, “Dood, if you call Charles Barkley a N*gger, he is going to throw you thru a plate glass window.”-which I understand he did once do. What’s wrong with that warning? It’s very much the truth! You are merely trying to FORESTALL an act that may well have very deleterious consequences, e.g., calling a very large muscular Black Man a N*gger or profaning the Prophet.

At every Christmas concert where my daughter went to school, they told this story: The one house on a block that had a menorah instead of Christmas lights had it's window broken by some anonymous bigot. What happened then was all the other houses on the block put menorahs in THEIR windows as a sign of support. There was never another incident after that: the bigot lost and the people won.

That's what should have happened with the Mohammad cartoons: every paper in the Western world should have published the cartoons on the same day. Instead they all cowered and let the bullies win.

If the MSM weren't the douche bags they are, they would have coordinated a similar action in support of Comedy Central. Instead they all ran for cover and Comedy Central "smashed the Menorah" themselves to show solidarity with the bigots.

I don't think I much see the need for calling Muslims, "animals." I ain't too keen on certain Muslims calling Jews "apes" and "pigs." And I sure don't see the need for it in reverse here. If you can't make your point withut sounding like something from Storm Front, mayhap you ought to move on.

Miracle-Whip---It's not just kinky, it's what Mohammed will do to you until you surrender your women and say "Alahu al Akbar".

Matt and Trey are truly the artistic heroes.

It has been TEN effing years and no epic biopic of Mohammed.

Still, also, no one seemingly knows of the Hadith.

Mohammed was a robber, a murderer, a slave owner, stole his adopted sons wife after a miraculous notion from Allah arrived in his lap, screwed a NINE year old girl (the Greater Peninsula Dairy Council must use a lot of hormones on it's camels) it goes on and on...

Compelling for "brave artists" no?

You can't hear a word from them on the American founding fathers without hearing of every slave slobbering vice...right?

Nope. Those dhimmis would rather lionize storming the gates of Christians, Jews and Tea Partiers.

Gonna be interesting in France. Sarkozy has just announced that he will submit legislation to the Parliament in Paris to ban Islamic face veils. Get out the popcorn and get ready for the Muslim youths to start setting fire to the cars again and for attacks on the Metro and the trains.

As for the Muslim guy who said he wasn't threatening anybody, just warning them: so I guess it's OK if I put a picture of HIS house up on Youtube and give HIM a warning about the dangers of offending us red-blooded American, gun-totin' right wingers. How many seconds would that video be up before the FBI is at my door and I'm thrown in the can? Meanwhile, this little turd is not only at large but is getting his 15 minutes of fame and loving every bit of it.

I don't think I much see the need for calling Muslims, "animals." I ain't too keen on certain Muslims calling Jews "apes" and "pigs." And I sure don't see the need for it in reverse here. If you can't make your point withut sounding like something from Storm Front, mayhap you ought to move on."

Yeah, well, the people who think that it's OK to threaten South Park over this kind of cartoon are animals. And so are the people who think that's not a threat if they use silly rhetorical tricks about it.

And people who don't realize that there's a reason you can attack Jews and Christians all you want without fearing for your life, and that reason is that those groups of people are simply better in this respect, are stupid. Perhaps animals.

Sorry, but it's the truth. Not all cultures are equal. I grant that a Muslim that strives against these animal aspects of Islamofascism are not animals. Of course they aren't. And the animals want to kill those people too.

I don't need to pretend to respect animals... and there's no reason to attempt to reason with them. The culprit in my mind here are western publications that are not standing together to carpet the world in depictions of Mohammad, I simply don't expect any kind of morality from the animals who are actually threatening to kill South Park creators... frankly I also think anyone who claims they didn't make such a threat are also animals.

1. manbearpig 2290 up, 149 downbuy manbearpig mugs, tshirts and magnetsthe single biggest threat to our planet. something out there which threatens our very existence and may be the end to the human race as we know it. i'm talking of course, about... "manbearpig." it is a creature which roams the earth alone. it is half man, half bear, and half pig! some people say that manbearpig isn't real. well, i'm here to tell you now, manbearpig is very real, and he most certainly exists! i'm cereal... manbearpig doesn't care who you are or what you've done. manbearpig simply wants to get you! i'm super cereal...manbearpig is Al Gore's way of getting friends because he doesn't have any.

Again citing Matt & Trey's genius, the best thing about MBP is the way they draw Algore, complete with cape, arms out as if flying and making his own whoosing sound. My side hurt the first time I saw that.

I'm sorry but after POLITICO edited themselves for the "violent metaphor" of Cole-*shot back* after Nancy Pelosi's daughter,Christine Pelosi, chastised them for it-this looks like a brave stand by comparison.

I didn't call Muslims "animals". I called people who use terror, and threats of murder, and beheading as a political weapons (Revolution Muslim), "animals".

Your allusion is the kind of dishonest straw man that comes from your own bigotry that assumes anyone who feels strongly against murdering Islamists can't possibly feel differently about innocent Muslims.

It's the kind of dishonest smoke screen that leads to weakness in the face of evil and that has terrible consequences for innocent people everywhere.

So when Cedarford makes similar threats against me for condemning torture on your very own blog you are silent--apparently all part of the game. (If you recall Cedarford said I deserved to be lynched for objecting torture of terror suspects, certainly a harsher statement than is in question here) But when Matt Stone and Trey Parker get a vague warning, you get all bent out of shape.

So when Cedarford makes similar threats against me for condemning torture on your very own blog you are silent--apparently all part of the game. (If you recall Cedarford said I deserved to be lynched for objecting torture of terror suspects, certainly a harsher statement than is in question here) But when Matt Stone and Trey Parker get a vague warning, you get all bent out of shape.

Has anyone even read the original post at the Revolution Muslim website? I noticed no one is linking to it and the site is now down.

I'm curious since some seem so quick to just wave this away as a warning. The site is still partially viewable in google's cache. They also rhetorically asked where Stone and Parker lived before linking to an article that provides the information.

Oh, and the first post showing on the cache discusses techniques for undermining counter terrorism efforts called "Counter Counter Terrorism #8 - Fomenting Disunity In The Counter Terrorism Movement".

I didn't call Muslims "animals". I called people who use terror, and threats of murder, and beheading as a political weapons (Revolution Muslim), "animals".

I wasn't talking to you....I was talking to Slow Joe, who seems to need to wipe the spittle off his/her key board and screen after certain postings.

And I don't think Revolution Muslim are "animals" or well yes they are, aren't we all, who are posting on this board?

Revolution Muslim and the KKK are the price you pay for freedom. I'm not going to worked up about thier foolishness as you seem to want to be.

And Freder:1) You're not as funny as Parker and Stone, so we care less about you; and2) Cedarford is a blow-hard key-board pounder who has ZERO violent track record, whereas a large number of folks have run afoul of disgruntled Muslims.

1 & 2 taken together tend towards us not worrying abut you being lynched by C4.

But nice whining and whinging, there...you can get the big baby award for today if you want.

I do say this, if the big 'ole mean C4 picks on you I'll threaten him wif a ten minute "time out" and no ice cream after din-din...m"kay?

You really need brush up on your history. In particular, you might want to read up on the Thirty Years War

you might want to brush up on your 20c History, yourself...Google Stalin/great purges/show trials/yezhov/yagoda/beria/gulag/mao/pol pot...I think the ostensibly atheist got about 100 million-plus which is in gross and per capita terms much worse than the 30 Years War.

If you're going to trot out "history" at least know some...or I won't protect you from that mean ole C4, you apparently fear.

Really nothing you’d kill for…nothing you’re passionate about? I’d say we all have the capacity to do fairly unspeakable things to one another, evidence Kampuchea, Myanmar, Rwanda…Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina…all pretty much done by homo sapiens pretty much like you and me. You want to make the differentiation between between “them” and “you.” I just don’t care to view it that way. That’s not some touchie-feelie PoV, just trying to see it like Christ might want us to see it. Saddened, willing to oppose the wrong, but not so sure that “they” are “less than me”…kinda of a Prodigal Son thingie, here…you obviously see yourself as the “Good Son” I see myself and the Revolution Muslim as the Prodigal and hope for the Father’s Love, Mercy and Redemption.

Hey dudes, I need to interrupt for an important message: right this minute the Democrats are eliminating the filibuster, according to republican.senate.gov and other sites. It's no exaggeration to say Obama is hoping to install a dictatorship. If they can do this, why can't they cancel the November elections?

So, a guy from the set of the Sopranos says, "If you do x, then that would anger the family, and y might happen".

That's a threat, not a warning.

Somebody else, NOT a member of the mob, says "If you do x, then that would anger the mob, and y might happen".

That's a warning, not a threat.

It all depends on WHO is saying it -- in the first case, someone is speaking on behalf of a group in which they themselves are members, "warning" of what THEIR OWN GROUP "might" do. That is a threat, full stop.

The second case is an outside observer stating the obvious. That is not a threat.

Because elections are set by the CONSTITUTION and the filibuster is set by Senate RULES, can you see the difference?

And I don't believe you...Reid and the Democrats ahve had 40-41 votes before in the Senate and they liked the filibuster then, and I suspect theyknwo thye'll be there again, and need it then...so no I don't think the Democrats are "getting rid of the filibuster."

Plus I think it takes 2/3 of the Senate to amend the rules, 67 votes, and if you can't must more than 59 from your own party where did the other 8 come from?

Ann is clearly right that Revolution Muslim is protected under free speech. They did not "directly" threaten Trey and Matt, and even if they did, I'm not sure it would or should make a difference. Obviously they are a hateful group, whose intent was to bully and intimidate but, as the old saying goes, I'll defend to the death their right to say it.

The wonderful thing about free speech is the ease with which we can identify idiots and hypocrites. The contrast is clear. In the US, you can make veiled threats of violence in the name of Islam and you are protected under the law. On the Arab street, a mere drawing of their prophet will get you killed.

Seriously, I do not go out of my way to offend Muslims, but this insanity of bending over backwards for their sensitivity has to stop. When Muslims show a minimum modicum of tollerance for athiests, Christians, Jews, Hindus, etc., we can worry about their sensitivities.

"And I don't think Revolution Muslim are "animals" or well yes they are, aren't we all, who are posting on this board?

Revolution Muslim and the KKK are the price you pay for freedom"

These comments are posed as though they contradict one another. They do not.

Letting animals speak, even though they are consumed with their lack of civilization, is one of the prices of a free society.

People who threaten to kill other people over religion or race are animals. And not in the way humans are also animals... they are animals and nothing more. They can't be approached in terms I can debate a rational person.

I can't tell Osama bin Laden about why Jews and Americans have rights and shouldn't be murdered... it just doesn't compute. I can't tell my cat that birds have rights, either.

This isn't complicated, and I don't feel the need to compensate for my lack of civilization like Joe, a person who is issuing an apologia for monsters, does.

By calling them animals, Joe doesn't understand the argument I'm making, which isn't original or all that advanced. He instead insults people he disagrees with, because he's just not smart enough to handle even this simple debate.

Also, it's a non sequitur to point out that they didn't break some laws.

Whether they broke the law or not is not the measure of whether or not they were communicating to Matt and Trey that they would use violence against them and their home for their art's offense to their religion.

Anyone who doesn't understand that needs to evolve beyond legal analysis, which is interesting on its own too, but not the end of the discussion.

Radical muslims have killed a lot of people. I know a handful of them. These monsters are not worthy of consideration, and the issue isn't how they act, because there will always be people acting like animals. The issue is how the western civilized people react.

In this case, caving to their demands rewards them and I'm sickened by that.

"He saw George Bush kissing that Saudi and wanted a little bit of the action?"

Since the right doesn't approve of this aspect of Bush's admin, and doesn't really like him much otherwise, it's not really relevant or hypocritical to point out that Obama has caved on major human rights issues. Obama is very much like Bush without the same resolve. They both spent too much and they both had some problems in their foreign policy and they both were poorly received diplomatically, which the exception of Libya.

Personally, I think Obama is worse than Bush as a matter of degree, spending so much more money, and caving so much more.

Why would I care to defend one and not the other? Partisanship? Who cares?

Everything and everyone is worthy of consideration, always. It's just that some things only require a fraction of a second to know what the right thing to do is. Like not buckling under to obvious pressure in this case.

Don't M&T have enough "fuck you" money by now to tell CC to take a flying leap? If they stopped producing right now, someone else would definitely pick them up.

In fact, we should carefully consider the best way to show them that these tactics backfire.

I was using a different meaning for my word "consideration". We shouldn't give them anything of value. We shouldn't attempt to exchange something with them over their attempts to bully us with violence. It won't work. We can't really reason with Klansmen or Nazis or Islamofacists. I can't really tell them why human life is more valuable than not offending some aspect of their religion.

Isn't that the real problem? These people think killing is OK if someone shows a picture of their prophet.

People like that do not qualify as members of society, in my opinion, and while we should consider how to deal with them, we shouldn't give them anything they demand.

I bet the comedy central execs are not sleeping very well right now. Who knows what Stone and Parker are planning for future shows. I remember the one with Jesus and Bush throwing feces at each other. It was in fact a slam at comedy central showing in no uncertain terms that Comedy Central would let them insult anyone they wanted. Except Islam. And maybe Scientology. Seems like CC wouldnt let them rerun the Tom Cruise one. And whoever called Garage anti-Semitic is a tool. I agree with him on virtually nothing, but I've seen zero evidence of that. Ah, newham. One of the mobys. Figures.

It's been said you are what you do. When the "you" is plural and one is talking about a very large group such as Muslims, simple labels implying homogeneity of any kind are rarely going to suffice. Labeling Islam (and its adherents) "peace-loving" is no more valid than labeling it "homicidal." The former is, however, potentially much more risky and likely to result in disastrous outcomes.

I lock my doors and windows, not because I believe everyone is a murderer or thief, but because the potential consequences of assuming the opposite are unacceptable. Rational societies adopt a similar view when it comes to large unassimilated immigrant groups, belligerent states and borders in general - leaving open the question of whether many current western nations including the US are demonstrably irrational.

Revolution Muslim (charming) should bear in mind what happened when Stone and Parker got in trouble with the Scientologists. I don't know what was in the episode TCC didn't air, but it couldn't have skewered Scientology worse than the one that did air. I did so want Matt and Trey to win the Academy Award (Blame Canada) the year they went to the ceremonies dressed in drag.

threatening people who ridicule their "religion", no matter how ass-backwards and out of touch their beliefs are. threatening violence against non-muslims for not worshipping the same god. this just goes to show that the world would be a much better place without religion clouding our judgement.

This is a warning that the unwarranted and censorious addition of unnecessary bleeps to the recent South Park episode, by the staff of Comedy Central, apparently out of fear of reprisals by the insane basement dwelling idiots at REVOLUTION MUSLIM, has repercussions.

We at REVOLUTION CARTMAN stand for the true Authoritah in this land, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Specifically the right of Matt and Trey to free speech, to not have their artistic genius muzzled by corporate dipshits or cave dwelling madrassah dropout losers calling themselves muslims.

If Comedy Central does NOT release the full and unedited version of the aforementioned episode of South Park, then something very, very bad will "probably" happen to Comedy Central CEO Doug Hertzog. We also demand that Hertzog be a good jew and immigrate immediately to Israel and join a kibbutz so he can learn how to be a non-self-hating jew.

It is unfortunate that we are forced to make such a prediction (note: this is only a prediction, we are not "threatening" Mr. Hertzog in any way, it's clear the Baby Jesus is gonna get him in the end anyways, and he'll be forced to go live with Satan and Saddam), but we were left with no choice by the moronic douchebags at REVOLUTION MUSLIM, it is clear that we must fight stupidity with stupidity.

As for REVOLUTION MUSLIM: If you nadless pussies think you can out "predict" REVOLUTION CARTMAN, you can go suck it. Everybody knows Cartman has the Authoritah. We'll meet your sorry asses at the corner of 15th and 5th.

Justin, that's like saying you're allergic to peanuts, so the world would be better without plants.

Islamic extremists, of which there are hundreds of millions, sadly, are a huge problem. Religion isn't. Religion that can be civilized is a great thing. It's be part of most good things, actually. Civil rights and human rights and freedom and laws.

The world's better with this effect. We don't need to generalize extreme hate into all religion.

I say show it. South Park is strictly made to not be censored and if anything is censored, it's strictly made to be made fun of. I love this show. So the towel-headed Islamofascists put out a little carefully worded fatwa and BAM!!! censorship because these pussies fear teh Allah? If a threat of violence is made, but we are told it was a warning, then how are people made to discern of that warning gets upgraded to actual violence? Cowards.

Obama, Hollywood, academia, the media, progressive Jews all push the idea that "crazy right wingers" are the REAL terrorist threat to the USA.

OK, lets apply the "South Park" test.

Name a film maker that has been killed for mocking "right wing nuts".How about film makers killed or threatened for dissing Islamoids?

Name a show or cartoonist here or in Europe threatened with death, had a "nutcase" assassin stop by, or died or had their building burned in a country or were fired for running "cartoons" offensive to conservative Christian or Western values.

Islam?

OK, name a Hollywood studio that caved immediately when a Christian militia or right wing neo-nazi group bitched that they heard a movie was was in the works that "really, really offended them".Or when the Jews that basically run the place got all over Mel Gibson for "The Passion of Christ" - name the Jewish mogul or Jewish activist group that physically threatened Gibson or warned that movie houses and distributors would be bombed?

Name the studios though that capitulated in shivers when CAIR or some overseas group of Islamoid whackos threatened them over a movie that impugned followers of the Religion of Peace. That happened many. many times.

Revolution Muslim effectively censored Comedy Central through threats of violence, and NO ONE is standing up for Comedy Central against these thugs. This kind of thing is what is driving people to the militias, no one protects our rights so we feel we must take up arms and protect them ourselves.

You know, i think i have the answer. a free speech jihad. every time comedy central censors, we should get all angry and threaten to blow them up. "How dare you censor mohammed? If you don't show mohammed this instant, i will blow up this suicide belt right now!"

First, there would be a dispute whetehr a bunch of white surpremacists are "right wing" in the first place.

Second you dodge the more basic point. the Liberals say we should oppose the tea parties based on a false claim they are violent.

But on the other hand, when faced with a demonstrative fact that islamofascists are violent, too many liberals say the right course of action is to cower.

i mean i am christian, but i believed in that artist's right to make the piss christ. i dispute his right to get federal money for it, but he has every right to make it. there is a difference between speech and subsidy. And comedy central had a right to mock mohammed. But comedy central is too much a bunch of p----s to do it.

when those white supremacists kill Berg, it was an act of terrorism. when islamofascists murdered theo van gogh, it was the same. the correct response ot terrorism isn't to give them what they want.

Interesting. Comedy Central is not making a series on Jesus Christ. Demeaning 80% of the Countries (USA) religion. Perhaps, (NOT A THREAT BUT A PROPHECY) some zealots might do to the producers what the Muslims planned to do in their prophecy. Only the odds are better because there are 80% of "Them"As far as making fun of mohamood, no one should disrespect anyone's religion. That's not censorship, it's common decency which most of the commoners do not have any more.BTW, the reason they backed down was the fear that the Muslims would kill them just like if the Muslim's realized that from now on, if there is a Muslim attack on a non-Muslim, ten Muslims might be killed and it happened every time, they might start to act differently. Just a thought, not a threat.